May 14, 1974
Page 14545
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I know that we are fighting a time constraint under the previous unanimous-consent agreement. However, I think that there is a potential conflict, or a bit of a conflict, between two of the acts we are dealing with. That conflict comes up because of the change that we have made in the coal conversion sections of the bill that did not exist under the previous sections of the bill, when we had agreed that the Federal Administrator could mandate coal conversion.
We can now under this arrangement only suggest it and stimulate it. However, if the State or local regulations are more stringent, we can suggest to them that they change those restrictions, but we cannot mandate them. The result could be that under a strict State statute, some State standards may require the use of low sulfur fuel beyond that necessary to meet primary or secondary standards under the act.
It might be felt that the Federal Administrator must allocate the low sulfur fuel and leave the rest of the country to buy whatever higher sulfur fuel might exist.
There is a section in this act that we are now considering which seeks to say that that result would not necessarily occur, and that whatever changes are necessary in the administration of the Mandatory Allocation Act would occur because of the amendment to this act.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. The Senator raised this point in the executive meeting of the Public Works Committee yesterday, and I think it has been resolved in section 6(a), which reads:
Any allocation program provided for in section 8 of this Act or in the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 shall, to the maximum extent practicable, include measures to assure that available low sulfur fuel will be distributed on a priority basis to those areas of the country designated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as requiring low sulfur fuel to avoid or minimize adverse impact on public health.
To give this meaning in my own words, it is the intent of this provision to insure that clean fuels and conforming fuels are used, with the highest priority given to protecting primary ambient air
standards, which are the health protection standards, and that beyond that, fuel should be distributed in accordance with the general authority of the administrator.
Mr. McCLURE. So that it could not, then, result in violation of primary ambient air standards in one area of the country in order to comply with stricter standards in some other State or local area?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCLURE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I wish to reaffirm what the able Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has stated. The Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) addressed this subject in a very knowledgeable manner within the committee's executive session on this legislation. I appreciate, as I am sure all of us do within the committee, the opportunity to clarify this point as it has been done by Senator MUSKIE.
As I noted, I wish to reaffirm what Senator MUSKIE has said.
I think it is important and necessary to clarify situations of this type. I again commend the Senator from Idaho for bringing this matter to our attention, so that it could be handled and clarified in this manner.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank both Senators for their information. That is certainly in accord with my understanding.
Mr. President, during consideration of the bill before us, I believe that it is important that we keep in mind another bill – considered and passed last year – the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. When Congress passed that measure, we granted. the President of the United States the authority to take fuel from one State, and give it to another. Not only did we grant that authority, we directed him to exercise it.
The changes in the Clean Air Act being considered today are directly related to that allocation authority granted last year. And one of the key issues involved is the setting of sulfur standards by local or State governments which are far stricter than those required by Federal law. Are we, in effect, to reward cities and States which set unreasonable standards for the sulfur content of fuels, and penalize regions which have not. Are we to see continued use of home heating oil by utilities and industries, who could use coal or residual fuel oil? I believe that it is essential that local and State governments recognize their responsibility to set reasonable standards for fuel composition, and not bow to political pressures with the hope that the Federal Government will bail them out, at the expense of their neighbors.
Obviously, it would be politically advantageous for any locality to demand almost zero sulfur content for any fuel burned within its boundaries, if they could be certain that they would receive
adequate fuel supplies at their neighbor's expense. I believe the Congress should be firmly on record as opposed to such actions. During these times of continuing fuel shortages and continuing concern for clean air, every State, county, and city has an obligation to carry its share of the burden, and not to expect to burn all natural gas or home heating oil, while others burn 3 percent sulfur coal.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the Public Works Committee in introducing this proposed legislation. It does not represent – as some have charged – a "gutting" of the Clean Air Act – nor does it represent an ideal solution to the critical energy problems facing this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill (H.R. 14368) was read the third time.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I rise only to make a statement with regard to my personal relationship to this measure. As the senior Republican on the committee, it has been my duty to follow the development of the automobile emissions section and the coal conversion section of the bill.
It is the responsibility of each Member of the Senate, of course, to determine whether or not he has a conflict of interest. It is my judgment that I do not. But so the RECORD will be entirely complete, and everyone will understand what the situation is, I would point out to my colleagues that I am the owner of a partnership interest in a substantial tract of land in Tennessee which I purchased from my father's estate, on which there are known coal reserves and known oil and gas reserves. I am not involved in production of either oil and gas or coal, but lest I be misunderstood, I wanted to make that statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is: Shall it pass?
The bill (H.R. 14368) was passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments to H.R. 14368 and request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part
of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to ; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BUCKLEY, and Mr. FANNIN conferees on t the part of the Senate.